Instigator / Pro
6
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3387

Gun control is bad

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1706
rating
561
debates
68.09%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This was a pretty frustrating debate to read. I was going to provide a really detailed breakdown of the problems, but I think keeping this at a more generalized level will help explain what concerns me.

From the outset, I'm not really sure how each side is defining what gun control actually is. Pro spends a lot of his time jumping between different potential forms of gun control without focusing on any of them, though much of his case mainly applies to gun bans or heavily restricted access to guns, while Con tells me that Pro is just focused on failed methods of gun control without really defining what is a successful type of gun control that he's defending. That leaves me in a strange place because, on the one hand, Pro's arguments do not all apply to every form of gun control, but on the other hand, I'm not sure what Con's case is so I don't know which ones apply to him. The best I can do is glean some stance from Con's advantages, which suggest that any gun control measure has to be nationwide and strongly enforced. What that means in terms of who can legally get guns, how much of a reduction that yields in the amount of legal guns in peoples' hands, and how effective that is at reducing the number of guns going into the hands of criminals/the suicidal is unclear.

What's missing from this debate is policies. You're both talking in the abstract without engaging with what a gun control policy would actually look like and how effective it would be. The debate starts in the abstract and stays there, with Pro claiming that poorly designed gun control policies stand in for any possible gun control policy (and focusing in on a few possible policies that his opponent never directly supports), and Con just saying that good gun control policies can happen without really getting down into what a good gun control policy looks like. And neither of you do yourselves any favors in terms of how you decided to address one another. Pro starts out with a generalized analysis with some statistics that may or may not apply to Con's case, then engages with Con's arguments largely via either cross-applying points he already made or giving short blurb answers that largely let the link do all the talking, demanding that Con and voters read a whole list of links that he never even quotes. Con begins with a pretty generalized and loose set of statements about Pro's argument that he outright tells us won't be supported, then comes out with a longer argument that's largely just a single source pruned down to some core points, followed by a third round that just expands on those points. There's surprisingly little meat to this debate.

There's a lot I could say about whether certain arguments apply or don't apply to specific sources, but that's pretty irrelevant to my decision on this. Though neither side talked about it, the burden in this debate is on Pro. He had to prove that gun control is bad, and since Con made the argument that he's just not engaging with whatever "good gun control" is in his estimation, I honestly can't tell if he affirmed the resolution. Even if the reason for that has more to do with Con's unwillingness to take a clear position, I need something from Pro that engages with that problem and tells me why he affirms the resolution anyway. Instead, I get a lot of reasons why the case for guns being beneficial as a deterrent is muddled (Pro focuses on Wyoming, Utah and Idaho while ignoring every other state in the final round and focuses on England while ignoring Australia), and a lot of alternate causality arguments that nonetheless acknowledge some benefit for gun control (even if other measures would be more effective, that doesn't erase these points). Even if I don't like his tactics in this debate, that leaves me defaulting to Con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro started off by claiming that 90% of all gun deaths are done with illegal guns, and I couldn't find this claim anywhere in the sources he listed. This fits in with the general pattern of the relationship Pro has with his sources - he leans heavily on quoting from them, though they make a lot of vague statements like "firearms prevent 400,000 violent crimes every year", with sources that don't explain where this data materialized from. Con seems to have a better command and understanding of what sources are for. I was a bit skeptical of his decision not to lay out his full argument in the first round, but in Round 2, while he admits it's an edited-down Vox article, he makes a very good basic case against the proposition, with some solid points that Pro didn't really successfully rebut. For example, Con points out that America has many times more firearm deaths as other developed countries. Pro says that it's just because America has a bigger population. To be fair, Con didn't explicitly say that these are deaths *per capita*, adjusted per population, but if Pro actually took a look at Con's source (as he tells Con to do multiple times) he would see that his rebuttal doesn't cut it. Plus, I agree that it was rather a poor move by Pro to pull the "We're talking about the US, not Australia" bit when he had used data from the UK earlier in the debate. And then accused Con of tu quoque when it was a perfectly valid thing to point out. Aside from that, it was a good debate overall.